🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,