🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,