🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury'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: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet 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 at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,