🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be 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, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,