🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently 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 Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating 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 watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves cannot 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 indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,