🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,