🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards 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 "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by 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 right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more 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 Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,