🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,