🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional 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 political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than 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 Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,