🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that 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 it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,