🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards 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 deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,