🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with 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 the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the 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 its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

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