🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" 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 OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, 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 justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at 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, especially given that bond investors demand from 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. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

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