🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,