🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to 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 disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing 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,