🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to 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. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,