🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing 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 could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

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