🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further 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 in the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

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

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,