🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public get in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't 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, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,