🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope 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 for a decade and a half portrays herself to be 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 standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,