🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps 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 true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public get in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,