🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public have over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to 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 "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially 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 far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

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