🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister 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 cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,