🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded 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 press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

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

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,