🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding 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, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope 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 from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – 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 Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,