🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal 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 gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,