🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,