🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

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