🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for 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 taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,