🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of 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 in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges 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 indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,