🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 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 a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,