🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,