🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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