🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, 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 their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,