🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,