🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges 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 Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,