🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public have in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal 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 watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such 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 breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,