🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that 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 these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,