🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny 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 prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent 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 is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act 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 along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,