🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration 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, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,