🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor 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, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,