🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and 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 an apolitical figure 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 decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,