🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

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