🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,