🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "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 in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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