🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,