🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public get in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,