🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. There were 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. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,