🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes which could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,