🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released 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 "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated 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. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

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