🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,