🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After 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 only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more 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 transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,