🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,