🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

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 own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,