🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of 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 breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from 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 spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,