🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,