🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,