🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,