🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,