🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided 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, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,