🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with 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 unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal 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 it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,