🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,