🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,