🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,