🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,