🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such 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. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,