🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and 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 others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,