🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove it.

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

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,