🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent 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 a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small 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 a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,