🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,