🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,