🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this 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 interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,