🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as 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

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm 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 bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,