🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual 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 you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense 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, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,