🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,