🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise 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. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term 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, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,