🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,