🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK 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. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,