🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,