🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,