🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,