🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't 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, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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