🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,