🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public get over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

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

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,