🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say the public have over the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,