🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly 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.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,