🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,