🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before 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, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,