🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to 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, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,