🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,