🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,