🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness 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 long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, 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 a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,