🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should 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 unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely 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 gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,