🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,