🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

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