🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for 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 media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given 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 strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,