🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, 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 why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,