🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces 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, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,