🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say the public get over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,