🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,