🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: 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 in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,