🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" 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 calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 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 only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,