🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing 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 scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,