🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several 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, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this 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 being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,