🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically 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, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, 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 going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,