🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,