🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must 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 is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,