🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic 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 combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. 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 is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces 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 decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,