🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding 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 choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

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

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering 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 fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,