🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation 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 efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 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, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. 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.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,