🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,