🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,