🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,