🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

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

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

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