🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards 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 Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,