🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (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 OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context 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 did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,