🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,