🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

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

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason 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 so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by 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, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because 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 True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,