🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal 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 his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,