🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,