🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real 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 conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to 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 only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

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