🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,