🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,