🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say the public get over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,