🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, 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 leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,