🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts 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 party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,