🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned 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 regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility 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 portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,