🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late 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 morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,