🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope 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 in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors 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 did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,