🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency 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 factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this 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,