🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, if 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 thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,