🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, 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 this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,