🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,