🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

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 never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that 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 was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by 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 spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,