🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting 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 are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,