🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,