🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire 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 spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,