🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. 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.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or 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 Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,