🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's 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, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,