🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading 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 could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,