🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: 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, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,