🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it 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 warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,