🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public get over the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 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, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,