🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with 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 one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,