🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised 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's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,