🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit 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 all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,