🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" 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 OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, 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, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, 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 together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,