🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,