🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

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

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards 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. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies 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 Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,