🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding 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 about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

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