🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. 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. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,