🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, 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, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,