🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential 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 as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,