🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from 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 that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

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

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,