🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

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