🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

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