🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,