🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,