🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

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

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to 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, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

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 left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,