🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,