🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

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 only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,