🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor 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 publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

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 caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,