🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this 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 being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what 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 Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,