🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

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

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,