🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in 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 own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised 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 powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,