🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,