🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

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

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. 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 real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly 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 unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,