🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down 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 quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,