🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. 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 voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,