🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public have over the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,