🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among 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 argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,