🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly 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 so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before last year's 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 jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as 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, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,