🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

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 provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for 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 compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,