🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to 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 contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness 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 forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,