🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,