🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being 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. Despite 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 justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense 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 this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,