🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public have in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures 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 getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. 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 conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, 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 taxes – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,