🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,