🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's 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 factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,