🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; 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 promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces 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 certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund 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 by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,