🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,