🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,