🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

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

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,