🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,