🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering 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 that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,