🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,