🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,