🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope 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 in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about 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 for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,