🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors 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 certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" 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 True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,