🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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