🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public get in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

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

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,