🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are 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 largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,