🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,