🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor 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 Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,