🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,