🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such 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 from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,