🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive 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 provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to 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 go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,