🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,