🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for 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, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,