🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

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

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,