🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

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

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against 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.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,