🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap 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: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,