🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. 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 Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. 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 is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,