🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from 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 been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,