🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged 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 jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,