🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,