🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off 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 finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,