🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent 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 shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,