🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,