🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget 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 finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and 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 couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,