🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty 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 been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,