🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from 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 Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,