🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises 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 recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

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