🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

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 caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,