🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent 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 "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,