🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,