🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,