🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,