🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as 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 Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,