🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,