🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way 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 was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,