🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged 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 jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 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 tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,