🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told 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 mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing 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 would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,