🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent 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 a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,