🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it 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 break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by 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, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,