🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our 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.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,