🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

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

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,