🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

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

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this 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,