🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our 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 chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,