🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is 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 as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, 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 in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,