🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, 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

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,