🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,