🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,