🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for 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 tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors 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 far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,