🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,