🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely 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 warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,