🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, 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 Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act 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 the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,