🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility 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 casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,