🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

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 intuitive knowledge of voters,