🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,