🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

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

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,