🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

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

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders 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 far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,