🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about 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 usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances 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, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,