🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. 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 considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, 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 portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with 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 the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,