🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to 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 "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent 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, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, 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 budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "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 True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,