🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy 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 happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on 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. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,