🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,