🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

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

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances 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 the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,