🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, 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 Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline 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 fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,