🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically 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 did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent 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, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,