🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "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 paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,