🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit 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 prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because 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 the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, 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, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of 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 as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,