🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, but, if 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 unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding 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 their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,