The most misleading thing about Rachel Reeves's budget? Who it was really for | Aditya Chakrabortty

"The charge is a grave one: that Rachel Reeves has just lied to Britons, spooking them into paying billions in extra taxes that she can splash out on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't the usual Westminster sparring; this time, someone might get hurt. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were, rightly, calling their budget chaotic. Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch is demanding the chancellor quit."

"It's an accusation that demands straightforward answers, so let me give mine. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. There were no whoppers, no falsehoods, no porkies. But despite Starmer's comments yesterday, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it all to funnel cash to benefits street, as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove it."

"Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood. Yet the real tale is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I get in the running of our own country. And it should worry you."

Rachel Reeves faced accusations of lying over budget forecasts and tax plans, yet no explicit falsehoods were found while misleading statements about decision factors occurred. The Office for Budget Responsibility published forecasts shared with Reeves, revealing improving predictions that contrasted with some chancellor statements and Westminster leaks. The OBR chief, Richard Hughes, resigned after a leak of internal documents. Opponents claimed tax rises were intended to fund higher benefits, but the figures do not support that claim. The episode damaged Reeves's reputation, highlighted transparency issues in fiscal decision-making, and raised concerns about public influence on national policy.

Read at www.theguardian.com