🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence the public get in the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even 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."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies 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 cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,