🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, even 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 potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors 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 far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,