🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this 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 usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces 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, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

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