🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new 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 should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,