🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by 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 did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,