🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public have in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,