🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,