🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces 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, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,