🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

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