🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,