🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,