🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,