🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,