🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent 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, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, 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 argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,