🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

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 reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,