🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from 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 finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,