🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by 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 in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,