🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story 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 concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan 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 #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,