🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,