🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing 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 bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. 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 can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,