🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

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

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. 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, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,