🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,