🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? 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 should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get over the running of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, 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 and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even 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 possibility for national renewal."

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

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's 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 go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,