🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,