🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,