🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than 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 over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what 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 Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,