🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors 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 decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,