🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual 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, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,