🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly 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 improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even 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 possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness 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 forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,