🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it 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 regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,