🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,