🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. 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 "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during 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 did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,