🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,