🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe 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 thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced 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 from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing 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, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,