🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

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

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,