🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from 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. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only 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 a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or 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 Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: 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 margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges 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 Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,