🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down 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 Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with 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 concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "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, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by 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 – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,