🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just 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 most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our 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 its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,