🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,