🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be used for higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove this.

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

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, 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 going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,