🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting 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 over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,