🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's 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 is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,