🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding 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 regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with 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 unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor 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

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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