🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been 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

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,