🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,