🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context 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 certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges 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 effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,