🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,