🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might 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 power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces 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 a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,