🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,