🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures 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. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,