🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,