🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,