🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of 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 that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged 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's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,