🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to 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 powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing 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 could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,