🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I get in the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast 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 political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,