🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite 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 considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances 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 did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as 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: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,