🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,