🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say the public have in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,