🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,