🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,