🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,