🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused 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 cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,