🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say you and I have in the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by 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 the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,