🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,