🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half 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 political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards 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 bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,