🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own 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 go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,