🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

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

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what 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 promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,