🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,