🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by 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 spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering 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 the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,