🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,