🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

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