🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" 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 watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of 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 and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,