🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! 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

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge 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 way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,