🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing 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 effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,