🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

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

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget 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 long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,