🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures 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 improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,