🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat 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 in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for 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 fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,