🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,