🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on 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 Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,