🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,