🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public have over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few 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 were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,