🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, 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 Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,