🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently 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 compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

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