🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,