🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,