🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing 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. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,