🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts 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 lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,