🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,