🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, 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, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as 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 party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by 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 been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more 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 central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,