🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,