🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

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

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,