🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. 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 factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,