🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,