🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,