🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation demands clear answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,