🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,