🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,