🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including 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."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,