🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,