🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot 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 , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,