🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as 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, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot 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 Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,