🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches 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 governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,