🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence the public get in the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,