🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,