🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise 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 breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. 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 genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,