🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. 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 breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,