🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,