🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of 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 from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned 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 stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

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