🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers 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 primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,