🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure 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, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,