🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions 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 are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,