🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,