🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,