🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public have over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,