🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The 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 long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,