🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,