🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always 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

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,