🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. There were no major untruths. However, 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 about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. 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 significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,