🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own 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 genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,