🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public have over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including 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, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,