🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public get over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for 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 gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged 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 from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as 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 theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,