🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,