🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, should 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, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be 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, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,