🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,