🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's 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", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,