🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public get in the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies 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 that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,