🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" 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 reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from 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 how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,