🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as 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 choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £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

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,