🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get over the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,