🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. 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 shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including 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 potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,