🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors 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 a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,