🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,