🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,