🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic 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. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,