🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,