🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public get in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,