🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,