🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public get in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,