🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,