🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,