🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,