🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,