🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed 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, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , 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 investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,