🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one Labour wishes 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 funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes 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 an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,