🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR 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. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this 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. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges 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 indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,