🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down 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 that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,