🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power 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 as a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,