🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,