🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what happened 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, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. 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.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,