🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. 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 about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

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 "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,