🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public have in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,