🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,