🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from 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 right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,