🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,