🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,