🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,