🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off 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 true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing 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 by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,