🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "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 from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,