🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what 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 misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , 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 markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,