🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken 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 yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

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