🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: 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 left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,