🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,