🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for 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 towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

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