🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,