🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes which would be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. 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, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,