🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,