🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,