🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday 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 suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – 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 can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,