🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,