🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from 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 in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit 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. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,