🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures 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 getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. 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, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From 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. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,