🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,