🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public have in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,