🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,