🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,