🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,