🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering 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 asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. 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, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,