🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps 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 much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public have over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even 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 possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,