🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,