🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave 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 were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,