🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential 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 a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: 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 caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,