🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,