🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that 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 watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,