🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently 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 much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,