🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged 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's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors 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 choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,