🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public have in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,