🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still 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 unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned 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, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,