🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,