🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, 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 shambles". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces 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, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,