🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; 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."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent 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, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,