🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because 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

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,