🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public get in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,