🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still 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 internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,