🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" 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 barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,