🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,