🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,