🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength 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. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among 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 together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

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