🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,