🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially 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 far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,