🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

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

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,