🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's 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 , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,