🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context 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, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,