🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 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 fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,