🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be 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 getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,