🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,