🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's 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 is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,