🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak 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 the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,