🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,