🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,