🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should 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 lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, 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 broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,