🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

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