🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,