🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "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 did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate 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 as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,