🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench 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 political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's 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 completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,