🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote 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 any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,