🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,