🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised 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 powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat 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 choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,