🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 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 should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,