🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which 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 and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,