🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense 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, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,