🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public get over the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £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 others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,