🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,