🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently 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 media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal 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 OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, 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 Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,