🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat 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 did make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,