🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our 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 that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,