🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our 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 its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , 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 new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,