🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise 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. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,