🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches 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 governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – 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 as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,