🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,