🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say you and I get in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,