🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,