🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" 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 OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,