🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite 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 Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap 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 have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,