🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to 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 suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,