🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to 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 have in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce 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 a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,