🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public have over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,