🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,