🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our 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.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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