🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" 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 Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,