🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

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

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's 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's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,