🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – 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 and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why 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 Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,