🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,