🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by 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 the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,