🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster'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 his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,