🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength 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 a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures 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 interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,