🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,