🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained 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 leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with 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 what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,