🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, 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 these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,