🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. 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 misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope 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 in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent 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 a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,