🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded 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 gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among 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 together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,