🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "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 is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years 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 finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,