🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before 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's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves'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 margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,