🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

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