🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

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