🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public have over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy 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 the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. 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 Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,