🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to 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 is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £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: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,