🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. 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 appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of 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 can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,