🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "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 breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,